The Farmers Weekly forums are now closed to new comments. You can share your views with us on Twitter, on Facebook or by emailing farmers.weekly@rbi.co.uk. You can also see and share pictures on our galleries.

Forums

Food security for a growing population

I just picked up on the phrase from the GM wheat debate “to achieve food security for a growing global population”. This seems to be an excuse for all sorts of activities. To some it may appear a little like creating more high-environmental-cost nuclear power stations to reduce carbon emmissions elsewhere. We also need more energy because the global population needs “energy security”. Can I ask the question, or is it too politically-incorrect, why in H**L are we not reading and hearing more about how we are going to halt and reverse the increase in the most unsustainable part of all of this, human population growth. We will never achieve either food or energy security for a global population until we address this issue. It may not, of course require expensive science, research etc. to address this particular issue as we might already have known technologies to do so, although some of these might also not be totally non-polluting to our environment. Sometimes we just need to keep it simple.

That little Phrase sums up so much of what is wrong in our world today. I will not give to Charities giving Money to the Sarving in Africa .I ask them if the Money is to buy Black Plasic or the Annual Birth pill , one is for controlling the problem of numbers the other is to enable Moisture to be retained in soil so that Plants can grow, simple. Have’nt had to give any money yet !

why in H**L are we not reading and hearing more about how we are going to halt and reverse the increase in the most unsustainable part of all of this, human population growth.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Malthus tried and failed.

The problem is where are you in ‘Logan’s run’ ?

I have a problem with the call to arms over this debate on too many people, this often the default setting of environmentalists use that it is down to the fact there are too many people.

Well I love people, and love life and i ain’t intending to give up my cards at present, and don’t see why anyone else should either.

All biological systems have built in feedback loops, which those who argue that Lovelock got it wrong, will question. The biological feedback is disease, war and failure to manage rresources in the human species. This is why there is so much hot air over these common rights. There are polluted oceans, shortages of water and many other tell tell signs around of ecological decay. Just watch when the people are told of a SARS outbreak what happens, people are very paniced at present. Why, because there is stress in the system and little resiliance. Take the petrol driver’s strike panic as another example, Norther Rock another one how many more examples do you need. Greece, Syria, Egypt, Libyia, Tunisia …………

Human population will be subject to the selective pressure that all species have. The trouble is most people are more interested in protecting their rights to property and not seeing the ecological impacts of human activity around them.

Stuart, On the long-running Charlie Flindt thread on Climate Change my boy gave a link to http://www.optimumpopulation.org over which Sir David Attenbrough presides. Some people are trying to do something about it. Are you and everyone else who posts here? You might not like the question, but the world truly is seriously overpopulated. After one I went for the chop. I always practice what I preach. How many of you lot stopped at one child, or even none? If I remember correctly, Motley decided on none.

Old McD, but surely it is about who has what, where and in what circumstances. Somehow I suspect that there is plenty of opportuntiy here for being very politically incorrect (something which in itself is possibly responsible for a lot of issues going unaddressed!).

To answer your question, two. But then my wife is an only child and on my side of eight grandchildren, four may stay at zero so overall we are not carrying too much responsibility.

As to stopping at one, I watched Jeremy Clarkson’s film on VC winners the other day. The point they made was that VC winners tended to come from larger families where the child had had to take responsibility for siblings early, the point being that they developed a strong sense of responsibility for those around them at a very early age. One can suppose that an only child does not. Do only children then grow up less socially-focused? Do they grow up more self-focused and consume a greater proportion of available resources than someone who has grown up in a ‘sharing’ environment? Taking this hypothesis you should have either zero or two children and not one. I guess to have been totally correct we should have had one of each but the wife insisted on boys.

Do only children then grow up less socially-focused? Do they grow up more self-focused and consume a greater proportion of available resources than someone who has grown up in a ‘sharing’ environment?

Interesting question. Having worked in the far east for a few years, I have a number of Chinese acquaintances, both from Hong Kong and the mainland. Culturally quite different places anyway, but there is an interesting contrast drawn between the typically larger families from the unfettered former colony (or whatever it was) and the one-child policy of the mainland. Mainland kids, even from moe modest backgrounds, quite often tend to be showered with everything their parents can afford and treated like little princes and princesses. I think this has helped to foster the hunger for the consumer society and a more “me” centered culture which is quite striking when you look at their great rival, India, where the traditional large familiy with its complex web of interrelationships still holds sway.

the world truly is seriously overpopulated. After one I went for the chop. I always practice what I preach. How many of you lot stopped at one child, or even none? If I remember correctly, Motley decided on none.

Cymdeithas yr Iaeth (The Welsh language society) are pleading for Welsh speaking families to have as many children as they possibly can in order to redress the balance between Welsh speaking children and incomers in the schools, in order hopefully, to save the language.

I totally agree with this policy, and I too practice what I preach so we had four children.

How about getting rid of child tax credits and the like and perhaps a weeky payment off say 100 to anyone over lets say 40 that has no kids and are therefore not adding to the problem but helping it[^o)]

ploughshare/wnw, What would have been yourreaction if somebody had decided you should limit your family to none or one?

Old mac, I was joking but in all seriousness there are far too many 16 yr old girls pushing prams about in poorer areas. They seem to get pregnant just because all their friends are and also the fact that they can get a flat and benefits to live on. Not an ideal way to start your adult life IMHO.